بَابُ الْإِجَارَةِHiring

¹ The statement: Forbade sharecropping, this has been discussed in detail in the chapter on irrigation and sharecropping. ² The statement: Ordered hiring indicates the permissibility of hiring, and it is a command of permissibility, reinforced by his saying: There is no harm in it. Taken from Al-Luma’at.

¹ The statement: Gave the cupper his wage and used snuff indicates the permissibility of hiring for cupping, the validity of employment, and the permissibility of medical treatment. As stated in Al-Marqah.

¹ The statement: I used to herd them for some carats for the people of Makkah, this narration proves the permissibility of hiring for herding sheep, and by extension, other animals are included in this permissibility. As stated in Nayl Al-Awtar. It is also said in Al-Marqah: It indicates the hiring of free individuals.

¹ The statement: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: The most rightful thing you take a wage for is the Book of Allah, Al-Qadi said: This indicates the permissibility of hiring for reciting the Qur’an and performing ruqyah with it, and the permissibility of taking wages for teaching the Qur’an. Some scholars prohibited it, including Az-Zuhri, Abu Hanifah, and Ishaq, citing the upcoming narration of Ubadah ibn As-Samit. In Sharh As-Sunnah, this narration proves the permissibility of ruqyah with the Qur’an and Allah’s remembrance and taking wages for it, as recitation is among permissible actions. This was used as evidence by those who permitted the sale and purchase of Qur’an manuscripts and taking wages for writing them, including Al-Hasan, Ash-Sha’bi, and Ikrimah. This view was held by Sufyan, Malik, Shafi’i, and the companions of Abu Hanifah. As stated in Al-Marqah. It is also said in Bazl Al-Majhood: This narration is the greatest evidence that wages are permissible for ruqyah and medicine, as stated by Shafi’i, Malik, Abu Hanifah, and Ahmad. As for wages for teaching the Qur’an, the majority permitted it based on this narration and Bukhari’s narration: The most rightful thing you take a wage for is the Book of Allah. Abu Hanifah prohibited it, as stated by Ibn Ruslan. I say: Later Hanafis permitted it due to necessity. In Radd Al-Muhtar: It is stated in Al-Hidayah: Some of our scholars approved hiring for teaching the Qur’an today due to the evident negligence in religious matters, as prohibiting it would lead to the loss of Qur’an memorization, and this is the fatwa. Taj Ash-Shari’ah said in his commentary on Al-Hidayah: Reciting the Qur’an for a wage does not earn reward for the deceased or the reciter. Al-Ayni said in his commentary on Al-Hidayah: The reciter for worldly gain, the giver, and the taker are all sinful. The conclusion is that the common practice today of reciting portions of the Qur’an for wages is impermissible, as it involves commanding recitation and giving reward to the one who commands, with the recitation being for money. If the reciter earns no reward due to an impure intention, how can the reward reach the employer? Were it not for the wage, no one would recite for another in this era. They have made the great Qur’an a means of livelihood and collecting worldly gains. We belong to Allah and to Him we return. Some were misled by what is in Al-Jawhara, as the author of Al-Bahr in the Book of Endowments followed it, and the commentator followed him in the Book of Bequests, suggesting the permissibility of hiring for all acts of obedience, including recitation. This was refuted by Shaykh Khayruddin Ar-Ramli in his marginal notes on Al-Bahr in the Book of Endowments, where he said: I say: The fatwa is that taking wages for teaching the Qur’an is permissible by approval, not for mere recitation, as explicitly stated in At-Tatarkhaniyyah, where it says: There is no meaning to this bequest or the reciter’s connection to his recitation, as it is akin to a wage, and hiring for it is invalid and an innovation not done by any of the caliphs. We mentioned the issue of teaching the Qur’an by approval, meaning due to necessity, and there is no necessity in hiring for recitation at graves. In Az-Zayla’i and many books: If the door to teaching for wages were not opened, the Qur’an would be lost, so they issued a fatwa permitting it and deemed it good. Be aware. The evidence some annotators used from Bukhari’s narration about the stung man to permit it is incorrect, as the early scholars who prohibited hiring absolutely permitted ruqyah for a wage, even with the Qur’an, as stated by At-Tahawi, because it is not purely an act of worship but a form of treatment. This is a summary of Radd Al-Muhtar. ² The statement: From those I was teaching the Book and the Qur’an, etc., this is clear evidence for Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him). As stated in Al-Marqah.

¹ The statement: Indeed, Musa (peace be upon him) hired himself, etc., the prevailing view is that Shuaib (peace be upon him) made herding sheep the dowry, as Allah mentioned this without disapproval, so it should be permissible in our Sharia as well. This is based on the established principle in usul that the laws of those before us are binding if Allah or His Messenger narrate them without disapproval. If the dowry was service other than herding sheep, it would not be permissible according to us if the service was for the bride, but it may be permissible if it was for another person, as is the case here, since the service was for Shuaib (peace be upon him). The details of this matter are appropriately explained in Al-Hidayah in the chapter on dowry: If a free man marries a woman on the condition of his service for a year or teaching the Qur’an, the marriage is valid, but what is mentioned does not qualify as a dowry. She is entitled to a dowry of her peers according to Abu Hanifah and Abu Yusuf, and the value of his service according to Muhammad. If a slave marries a free woman with his master’s permission on the condition of his service, or a free man marries a free woman on the condition of another free man’s service, or on herding the husband’s sheep, what is mentioned qualifies as a Leadership dowry. Shafi’i says that what is mentioned qualifies as a dowry in all cases, equating the first two scenarios with the others. We say: The legislated means is to seek through wealth, as Allah says: That you seek through your wealth [Surah An-Nisa: 24]. Teaching the Qur’an is not wealth, nor are benefits according to our principle, so they do not qualify as a dowry. This differs from the service of a slave husband, as it is seeking through wealth due to the guarantee of his person. For a free man, it requires altering the subject. This differs from the service of a free man serving another free man with his consent, as it does not require that, so there is no contradiction. This also differs from herding sheep, as it falls under fulfilling marital duties, so no contradiction arises. However, it is not permissible in one narration. This is the summary of his statement. It is understood that herding sheep qualifies as a dowry in one narration, unlike the benefits of another, which do not qualify. The story of Shuaib (peace be upon him) indicates the permissibility of herding sheep as a dowry, as well as the permissibility of fathers taking the dowry, the marriage being in the future tense, the bride and dowry being unspecified, and the permissibility of choosing between less or more. The first was mentioned in a narration, as you know, but the rest do not align with our Sharia. Therefore, they said it is possible that the laws differ in this regard, or the dowry could be the lesser or greater amount as a favor. Shuaib’s statement: I wed you is considered an offer of marriage, not the marriage itself, so it is not in the future tense, and the bride is not unspecified. The permissibility of fathers taking the dowry has been abrogated now. The evidence is that it is mentioned in Al-Husayni that Shuaib’s statement: On the condition that you work for me, with the pronoun referring to himself, indicates that in previous Sharias, the dowry of daughters went to the fathers, and this was abrogated in our Sharia by Allah’s statement in Surah An-Nisa: And give the women their dowries graciously [Surah An-Nisa: 4], meaning give the women their dowries, not their fathers. This verse abrogates that aspect. It is explicitly stated that benefits other than herding sheep do not qualify as a dowry according to us but do according to Shafi’i. The author of Al-Madarak stated under Allah’s statement: Indeed, I wish [Surah Al-Qasas: 27]: This statement is a promise from Shuaib, not the marriage itself, as if it were the marriage, it would have been expressed in the past tense, such as: “I have wed you.” This is the summary of his statement. Shuaib’s words were not interpreted as a marriage contract, as marriage is only with the past tense and for a specified woman. He also said: Marrying on the condition of herding sheep is permissible by consensus, as it falls under fulfilling marital duties, so there is no contradiction, unlike marrying on the condition of service. Summarized from Tafsir Al-Ahmadiyyah.

¹ The statement: The beggar has a right, etc., because of his request, it is as if it is a wage for him, and this is why it is relevant to this chapter. As stated in Al-Luma’at. I say: The worker is also a requester of wages, so he has a right, even if he comes on a horse.

¹ The statement: That the water is to be shared, etc., in Al-Bazdawi: Muhammad used this verse to validate water sharing and division, as Allah says: And inform them that the water is to be shared between them [Surah Al-Qamar: 28], and Allah says: It has its share, and you have your share on a known day [Surah Ash-Shu’ara: 155]. As stated in Tafsir Al-Ahmadiyyah. ² The statement: It has its share, and you have your share on a known day, this is evidence for the permissibility of water sharing. As stated in Al-Madarak.